2012 (1) TMI 255 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellant-Bank to take disciplinary action against Respondent No.1 for acts committed during previous employment.
2. Non-supply of the Enquiry Report and absence of a second show-cause notice.
3. Allegations of mala fide intention by the Bank.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellant-Bank to take disciplinary action against Respondent No.1 for acts committed during previous employment:
The core issue was whether the Appellant-Bank could initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.1 for financial irregularities allegedly committed while he was employed by Raipur Krishi Unnayan Samity, an affiliated cooperative society. The Supreme Court held that the Appellant-Bank was entitled to commence disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.1 due to the link between the Samity and the Bank. The Court referenced Rule 69(2)(b) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, which allowed the Bank to recruit from affiliated societies. The decision in S. Govinda Menon vs. Union of India [(1967) 2 SCR 566] was cited to support the view that past conduct reflecting on integrity could be grounds for disciplinary action even if the employee was not under the administrative control of the Bank at the time of the alleged misconduct.

2. Non-supply of the Enquiry Report and absence of a second show-cause notice:
The Bank admitted that it had dismissed Respondent No.1 without providing a copy of the Enquiry Report or issuing a second show-cause notice. The Supreme Court, referencing Managing Director, E.C.I.L. vs. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], held that non-supply of the Enquiry Report did not automatically vitiate the disciplinary proceedings unless it caused prejudice to the employee. The Court found no prejudice was caused to Respondent No.1 by the non-supply of the report or the absence of a second show-cause notice, and thus, the disciplinary proceedings were not vitiated.

3. Allegations of mala fide intention by the Bank:
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had found that the dismissal was tainted with mala fide intention. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this view, stating that the Bank had a fiduciary duty to ensure the integrity of its employees, especially given the allegations of financial irregularity. The Court emphasized that the Bank's actions were justified and not driven by any ulterior motive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The decision of the Bank to dismiss Respondent No.1 from service was restored, with no order as to costs.